Couldn't be better! As Logic Times says it:

"The stunning conclusion one must draw from this review is that, without media bias, the modern secular humanist (i.e., raging liberal) incarnation of the Democrat Party is entirely non-competitive. The only hope for this failed European model of government is to camoflague it (see Political Mimicry) or do away with it and redefine the party. To our delight, the Democrat Party, with Howard Dean battling Harold Ickes for the DNC chair, shows no signs of re-inventing itself."

Read The Value of Media Bias

Posted by: DPHall at February 2, 2005 03:04 AM | Permalink to this comment

Well, I'm secular humanist, but I could hardly be called "modern liberal." :)

What amazes me while watching the Democrats for the past few weeks is the sense of watching a trainwreck coming and knowing that the people in charge know it's going to happen, and won't do a thing to stop it. From their complete wrong-headedness on security issues to Nancy Pelosi describing the desire for private Social Security accounts as "obscene," to John Kerry and Ted *hic* Kennedy's churlish remarks about the Iraqi elections, the leaders of the Democratic Party are willingly heading right for the cliff of irrelevance.

I wonder if they're the new Whigs?

Posted by: Anthony (Los Angeles) at February 2, 2005 03:16 AM | Permalink to this comment

Please. First of all, the problem with private social security accounts is that it doesn't deal with the fundamental problem that Social Security was meant to deal with: large numbers of seniors in poverty. If you don't remember, that was a huge problem before Social Security, and now it is largely a thing of the past. While private accounts will surely benefit a large number of seniors, it will also leave many out in the cold --- what happens when their accounts crash and burn because of poor investment choices? It is bound to happen, statistically speaking. Then we'll be in a situation where a bunch of "unlucky" seniors are living in poverty, admittedly because of mistakes on their part, but nevertheless, in poverty. What will happen then? Will we let them starve? Unlikely --- instead, we'll probably end up having to spend more government money to bail them out --- leading to even more fiscal instability in the government.

Maybe there's a way to make private accounts work, but I have yet to see a viable plan. And, the fact is, the Social Security system is not "in crisis" --- there's no big problem there. Our financial situation as a whole is certainly in crisis, however, but that's not because of Social Security, it's because of the Bush Administration's legendary fiscal irresponsibility.

As for Dean --- he was a moderate, even conservative Democratic governor of Vermont. He's in favor of gun control and he's a fiscal conservative. He ran too far to the left, unfortunately, in the presidential race --- but I doubt he's going to make that mistake again.

Posted by: M at February 2, 2005 03:46 AM | Permalink to this comment

Correction: I meant to say he's in favor of restrictions on gun control (he was endorsed by the NRA eight times). He's naturally more conservative than most Democrats, in fact. If he can regain his moderate leanings, which I think he already has, he could be a formidable chairman.

Posted by: M at February 2, 2005 03:58 AM | Permalink to this comment

My view is that there would be no problems with Social Security if Republicans (and Dems too, sigh) didn't raid it constantly like a piggy bank. IMHO Private Savings accounts are one of the stupidest ideas to come around, the fix to the SS fund is stop frickin raiding it.

That being said, Dean is a total disaster. As noted by M, Dean was fairly moderate as a governor in Vermont. He got good marks by the NRA (so he was gun friendly, a rarity for a Democrat). However, he's the creature of "screw em" Kos/MoveOn etc. That will just destroy the Democratic Party, being absolutely not responsive to middle class concerns about security, family, and the economy.

Posted by: Jim Rockford at February 2, 2005 04:00 AM | Permalink to this comment

If he continues to run to the left as he unfortunately did during the presidential race (note that this was more a matter of style than of substance --- he retained many of his conservative views even during the Presidential campaign), then I'd agree, it would be a disaster for the Democratic Party. However, in his campaign for DNC chair he emphasized his moderate gubernatorial record, and this is partly why he seems to have managed to clinch the nomination. We'll see how things go, but I suspect he's going to run back to the right while at the same time energizing grass roots support. On the other hand, he did make the mistake of appearing to run too far left during the Presidential campaign, and this was a political miscalculation which perhaps means he lacks the political savvy to really turn around the party.

I am, however, going to withhold judgement until we see what he does.

Posted by: M at February 2, 2005 04:06 AM | Permalink to this comment

Well, for both parties, isn't it normal procedure for the candidates to try to appease their extremists during the primary and then dash back towards the middle? I can remember Bush doing the same in 2000 and then making a mad dash back to the middle for the national campaign. So its hard to fault Dean for doing the same tactics. He should have had a tighter rein on his volunteers and he shouldn't have let his pep-rally to the losing troops be televised.

At his heart, Dean is a moderate who will be good for the party. The dem's have gotten out of touch with their true base and Dean will reestablish that connection. He's also quite agressive, which I believe they have to be, at this point. Too many of the other potential chairs seemed to be either Republican-lite or too passive.

Posted by: cs at February 2, 2005 06:05 AM | Permalink to this comment

Ten years from now no one will remember who the Democrats made the chairman of the DNC in 2005.

If Howard Dean drives his car into the Tidal Basin or shows up for a speech wearing a dress they might remember. Maybe. But the influence of party chairmen on their party's fortunes is at the far end of marginal, unless you get a party chairman who is either a genius or an idiot. Dean is neither, and as far as I can tell none of the other people mentioned as candidates for the job are either.

The reason this whole subject is getting the coverage it is has to do with how easily bored the people who cover government get with what government does. What they really want to cover is campaigns, and the "race" for DNC chair is the only one going on right now.

Posted by: Zathras at February 2, 2005 04:41 PM | Permalink to this comment

Whoever becomes Chairman of the DNC will probably be better for the Democrats then their current Chairman, the Clintons' old money man, Terry McAulliffe, who if not the sleasiest person in today politics, is pretty close!
Yea, the idea of private SS accounts is the Right Wing Republican's plan to finish off the New Deal by destroying social security. This so-called "ownership society" will take us back to the First Gilded Age of the late 19th Century with the Robber Barons in unchecked control of the control. The US will become like Brazil with a small economic elite controlling everything and the rest of us grubbing for what few extra pennies our lords and masters are willing to throw our way!

Posted by: David All at February 2, 2005 10:49 PM | Permalink to this comment